Author Topic: Taker vs. Lesnar (threads merged):  (Read 10307 times)

Dago_Joe

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 997
  • Better to look good than to feel good: ALWAYS
Re: Lesnar vs Taker - swerve?
« Reply #75 on: April 07, 2014, 11:39:27 AM »

Seemingly, anyone who simply watched wrestling prior to 2005 could. I knew a lot about how to work before I ever stopped foot in a ring!
Yeah, imagine that - actually LEARNING about the biz before you jump into and expect to be Hogan.   I saw an interview with Nash where he said the last time he was in the locker room with the boys in wWE, they were all playing video games and no one was in gorilla position or bothering to even watch or learn anything.  The attitude at the fed seems to be that there is no respect for what truly made wrestling great and it reflects in the personnel and product. 

Montague

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14566
  • "TV ratings don't matter."
Re: Lesnar vs Taker - swerve?
« Reply #76 on: April 07, 2014, 12:23:03 PM »
Yeah, imagine that - actually LEARNING about the biz before you jump into and expect to be Hogan.   I saw an interview with Nash where he said the last time he was in the locker room with the boys in wWE, they were all playing video games and no one was in gorilla position or bothering to even watch or learn anything.  The attitude at the fed seems to be that there is no respect for what truly made wrestling great and it reflects in the personnel and product.  


Damn, that's sad, bro.

I remember being backstage at one of our Indy shows in 2002. I think Punk was working with Styles. Literally, EVERYBODY rushed to crowd around the tiny black & white monitor. You could hear comments like, "time to go to school!" Those guys were probably more passionate about the business than 75% of the current WWE roster.

I remember one kid; his life's goal was to go not to the Fed, but to ROH. You knew he wasn't in it for the money. He was in it for the love and to perform with the best.

Montague

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14566
  • "TV ratings don't matter."
Re: Taker vs. Lesnar (threads merged):
« Reply #77 on: April 07, 2014, 12:26:24 PM »
Almost certainly the case. Plus, companies tend to lowball their projections. So, they can then surpass them.

Vince projected a million subscribers by the end of the year, but he really might have wanted that million by now. So far, they're at 667k. With Mania done, is there really a lot of meat on the bone, in the form of new subscribers? And how many people will drop it after the first year?

Stay tuned.



My buddy told me the rate is supposed to climb to $15/month next year, which my prompt those who are on the fence right now to take advantage. At the current bargain price of $10/month, they're probably hoping most people can justify keeping it despite diminishing interest/use.

Thin Lizzy

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12965
  • Trump: 326 Electoral Votes
Re: Taker vs. Lesnar (threads merged):
« Reply #78 on: April 07, 2014, 12:47:13 PM »
IMO, they're gonna need more original content than what they're currently providing. 12 PPVs + the library isn't enough. Whether they produce the content themselves or pay someone else, it's gonna cost money and will eat into the profits.

The Network is a timely idea but it's not a license to print money as much as a replacement for a dying PPV model.

This is what Wall St. missed when driving up the stock price. Of course, I'm one of the few people who is both a finance and wrestling geek. ;D

gmflex

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6723
  • The Empire lives...you rebel scum!!!
Re: Taker vs. Lesnar (threads merged):
« Reply #79 on: April 07, 2014, 01:36:08 PM »
I loved the network for the classic WCW material...
But I agree there going to need more original content..
In order for people to sign up or keep buying it..
They should show some of the WWE produced movies..
No holds barred  :D

littleguns

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4183
Re: Taker vs. Lesnar (threads merged):
« Reply #80 on: April 07, 2014, 03:45:54 PM »

My buddy told me the rate is supposed to climb to $15/month next year, which my prompt those who are on the fence right now to take advantage. At the current bargain price of $10/month, they're probably hoping most people can justify keeping it despite diminishing interest/use.

It was announced they currently have 678K subscribers = $6 mil a month....that is some crazy loot.

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19159
  • Tossing sand in your Va-Jay-Jay
Re: Taker vs. Lesnar (threads merged):
« Reply #81 on: April 07, 2014, 03:58:16 PM »
I am not an Undertaker fan by any means.  The highlight of the match for me was Lesnar shutting down that stupid Old School move that did absolutely nothing but the opponent had to sell it like a chair shot.   ::)

It makes sense to give the win to Brock.  You can't call him a part time wrestler when UT only wrestled once a year.  That is why they gave it to Brock.  He will only wrestle once or twice... just like UT did.  Make him into the Wrestlemania Legend that remains unbeaten.  (Don't know his prior WM track record and won't look it up)  They had to pass the torch to someone and having someone who is going to wrestle and job at point during the year will not make sense and make them seem so dominant on the day of WM.


gmflex

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6723
  • The Empire lives...you rebel scum!!!
Re: Taker vs. Lesnar (threads merged):
« Reply #82 on: April 07, 2014, 04:42:59 PM »
I am not an Undertaker fan by any means.  The highlight of the match for me was Lesnar shutting down that stupid Old School move that did absolutely nothing but the opponent had to sell it like a chair shot.   ::)

It makes sense to give the win to Brock.  You can't call him a part time wrestler when UT only wrestled once a year.  That is why they gave it to Brock.  He will only wrestle once or twice... just like UT did.  Make him into the Wrestlemania Legend that remains unbeaten.  (Don't know his prior WM track record and won't look it up)  They had to pass the torch to someone and having someone who is going to wrestle and job at point during the year will not make sense and make them seem so dominant on the day of WM.




Solid post sir

Montague

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14566
  • "TV ratings don't matter."
Re: Taker vs. Lesnar (threads merged):
« Reply #83 on: April 07, 2014, 04:43:34 PM »
It was announced they currently have 678K subscribers = $6 mil a month....that is some crazy loot.


The old man's still got it!

Karl Kox

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6863
  • There's no Kayfabe in the business anymore.
Re: Taker vs. Lesnar (threads merged):
« Reply #84 on: April 07, 2014, 10:26:41 PM »
Taker simply botched the kickout.

This couldn't be farther from the truth.  You think they would have had the graphic of 21-1 up if that was the case. Taker losing the match was a very kayfabed deal. Only a handful knew about it.

Nirvana

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5121
Re: Taker vs. Lesnar (threads merged):
« Reply #85 on: April 07, 2014, 10:41:59 PM »
This couldn't be farther from the truth.  You think they would have had the graphic of 21-1 up if that was the case. Taker losing the match was a very kayfabed deal. Only a handful knew about it.
as if the ref really would have counted to three if taker had botched a kickout  ::)

gmflex

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6723
  • The Empire lives...you rebel scum!!!
Re: Taker vs. Lesnar (threads merged):
« Reply #86 on: April 08, 2014, 06:07:02 AM »
It looks like  taker did what was best for the business...
Paul Heyman did a great Job of selling Brock Lesnar last night on raw

Playboy

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11278
  • If the bar ain't bending, you're just pretending
Re: Taker vs. Lesnar (threads merged):
« Reply #87 on: April 08, 2014, 06:52:41 AM »
Apparently Undertaker took a bad bump early in the match resulting in a serious concussion and neck/back injury.  He collapsed backstage and was rushed to emergency.  Vince himseld along with Lesner and Heyman road with him to the hospital.  Thats respect. Vince left the show of the year to sit by Takers side.

UPINTHEMGUTS

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5633
  • I can spot crazy pussy....
Re: Taker vs. Lesnar (threads merged):
« Reply #88 on: April 08, 2014, 07:22:33 AM »
Apparently Undertaker took a bad bump early in the match resulting in a serious concussion and neck/back injury.  He collapsed backstage and was rushed to emergency.  Vince himseld along with Lesner and Heyman road with him to the hospital.  Thats respect. Vince left the show of the year to sit by Takers side.

I'm curious to know which bump or spot during the match caused the concussion and back injury. He took a long time to make his way backstage from the ring but I thought he was just selling his defeat and soaking in the applause.

littleguns

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4183
Re: Taker vs. Lesnar (threads merged):
« Reply #89 on: April 08, 2014, 07:35:10 AM »
I'm curious to know which bump or spot during the match caused the concussion and back injury. He took a long time to make his way backstage from the ring but I thought he was just selling his defeat and soaking in the applause.

Supposedly it was a leg drop. The question is will UT break kayfabe and announce his retirement if this is the case. As someone else said, when they decide to do a DVD on him, have Mark Calloway break character and talk about his life, struggles etc..

Next step - Brock vs Daniel B - David vs Goliath

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17295
  • Getbig!
Re: Taker vs. Lesnar (threads merged):
« Reply #90 on: April 08, 2014, 07:40:03 AM »
I am not an Undertaker fan by any means.  The highlight of the match for me was Lesnar shutting down that stupid Old School move that did absolutely nothing but the opponent had to sell it like a chair shot.   ::)

It makes sense to give the win to Brock.  You can't call him a part time wrestler when UT only wrestled once a year.  That is why they gave it to Brock.  He will only wrestle once or twice... just like UT did.  Make him into the Wrestlemania Legend that remains unbeaten.  (Don't know his prior WM track record and won't look it up)  

You must have a short memory. Triple H beat him last year (and Goldberg beat him, in that garbage match, 10 years ago).




They had to pass the torch to someone and having someone who is going to wrestle and job at point during the year will not make sense and make them seem so dominant on the day of WM.



'Taker is part time, due to his injuries. He's paid his dues in the ring, which is why I wish he stayed undefeated at WrestleMania. It's the only thing that separates him from the other guys, given their longer/more frequent title reigns and being given the proverbial keys to the kingdom or the ball.

Come on! Punk gets a 14-month title reign but 'Taker doesn't? That's ridiculous.

The ending they did for WM27 should have been duplicated at 30: Have Lesnar beat Undertaker silly for 90% of the match, only to have the Deadman pull some rabbit out of his hat (a new submission move or even a cheap roll-up). 'Taker gets the win but is busted up and carted out on a stretcher or in an ambulance.

As I said earlier, Austin got over Bret Hart, without ever pinning the Hitman or getting him to submit. He LOST at WM13 but got launched big time.

Lesnar gets over as a monster; 'Taker retires with streak intact; all is right with the world.

Melkor

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 599
Re: Taker vs. Lesnar (threads merged):
« Reply #91 on: April 08, 2014, 02:51:49 PM »
Just had a chance to watch Mania today and even though I am a big Taker fan and wanted to see the streak remain intact, it is better that it has finally ended. He looked way past it, definitely not capable of another big match next year. You would have to believe that this will be his last match. Going out with the defeat is the way the greats have done it at Mania - Austin, Michaels, Flair (although he keeps coming back) and Taker was keeping up that tradition.

I'm not sure if Lesnar was the right guy though, simply because he is already over no matter what. Beating Taker would've been the ultimate way to get somebody over who WWE are trying to push (timing was not right for Bray Wyatt or Cesaro but these are the types of wrestlers I mean).

Montague

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14566
  • "TV ratings don't matter."
Re: Taker vs. Lesnar (threads merged):
« Reply #92 on: April 08, 2014, 03:04:11 PM »
Just had a chance to watch Mania today and even though I am a big Taker fan and wanted to see the streak remain intact, it is better that it has finally ended. He looked way past it, definitely not capable of another big match next year. You would have to believe that this will be his last match. Going out with the defeat is the way the greats have done it at Mania - Austin, Michaels, Flair (although he keeps coming back) and Taker was keeping up that tradition.

I'm not sure if Lesnar was the right guy though, simply because he is already over no matter what. Beating Taker would've been the ultimate way to get somebody over who WWE are trying to push (timing was not right for Bray Wyatt or Cesaro but these are the types of wrestlers I mean).


I see the point in your last paragraph, but I'm not sure Taker could last much longer. I would hope they'd been discussing with Brock his long term plans with the Fed prior to Mania. I understand that his last couple of UFC showings were less than stellar, and - at his age - make believe fighting may be his best bet.

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17295
  • Getbig!
Re: Taker vs. Lesnar (threads merged):
« Reply #93 on: April 08, 2014, 03:17:04 PM »
Just had a chance to watch Mania today and even though I am a big Taker fan and wanted to see the streak remain intact, it is better that it has finally ended. He looked way past it, definitely not capable of another big match next year. You would have to believe that this will be his last match. Going out with the defeat is the way the greats have done it at Mania - Austin, Michaels, Flair (although he keeps coming back) and Taker was keeping up that tradition.

I'm not sure if Lesnar was the right guy though, simply because he is already over no matter what. Beating Taker would've been the ultimate way to get somebody over who WWE are trying to push (timing was not right for Bray Wyatt or Cesaro but these are the types of wrestlers I mean).

And that's why I said that they should have put Brock over WM27-style by having him pound 'Taker into oblivion yet having the Deadman roll him up or catch him in a new submission move for the win.

I could have seen Lesnar going for that 3rd F-5, only to have 'Taker slide out of it, inside-cradle Lesnar for the 1-2-3. Lesnar then goes nuts and completely gets medieval on 'Taker, breaks his arms, legs, whatever.

He'd be the guy that destroyed the Undertaker......but 'Taker would still be undefeated at WrestleMania.

I know this was the Deadman's call (in part, if not wholecloth); but if I'm part of the WWE brass, I politick with 'Taker and plead with him (as a "Thank you" for all he's done for the company) to let the streak stay intact.

Playboy

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11278
  • If the bar ain't bending, you're just pretending
Re: Taker vs. Lesnar (threads merged):
« Reply #94 on: April 08, 2014, 05:47:31 PM »
From what I "know" the undertaker wanted to wrestle brock two years ago and lose the streak back then (same year undertaker was at brocks last UFC fight) but negotiations with brock held it up.

Montague

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14566
  • "TV ratings don't matter."
Re: Taker vs. Lesnar (threads merged):
« Reply #95 on: April 08, 2014, 05:50:53 PM »
From what I "know" the undertaker wanted to wrestle brock two years ago and lose the streak back then (same year undertaker was at brocks last UFC fight) but negotiations with brock held it up.


I remember them beginning to build that. Taker showed up at one of Brock's matches. I didn't realize it had been that long ago already.

Playboy

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11278
  • If the bar ain't bending, you're just pretending
Re: Taker vs. Lesnar (threads merged):
« Reply #96 on: April 08, 2014, 06:04:50 PM »

I remember them beginning to build that. Taker showed up at one of Brock's matches. I didn't realize it had been that long ago already.
Yup...time flies

Montague

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14566
  • "TV ratings don't matter."
Re: Taker vs. Lesnar (threads merged):
« Reply #97 on: April 08, 2014, 06:07:09 PM »
Yup...time flies


Damn...
My b-day several weeks ago didn't make me feel as old as this one post!

Playboy

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11278
  • If the bar ain't bending, you're just pretending
Re: Taker vs. Lesnar (threads merged):
« Reply #98 on: April 08, 2014, 06:08:18 PM »

Damn...
My b-day several weeks ago didn't make me feel as old as this one post!
oh shit...happy belated!!

Montague

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14566
  • "TV ratings don't matter."
Re: Taker vs. Lesnar (threads merged):
« Reply #99 on: April 08, 2014, 06:09:56 PM »
oh shit...happy belated!!


Belated gracias!!